Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute seeking adjudication pursuant to section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

CA-00047675-001

15 December 2021

The hearing was conducted remotely in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The worker filed a complaint under the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

There was no objection to the investigation of the dispute from the Employer, in the time prescribed by statute.

The Employee, after exhausting all internal grievance procedures, has sought to have payment for 28 days worked during the Covid19 pandemic which she claims there was amble work for her. The Employer maintains that the Employee was on full notice that she was not required to work due to the downturn in racing and consequently would not be paid. The Employee seeks payment for the time worked.

The Employee has worked with her employer for approximately 42 years The Employee engaged in and availed of each stage of the Grievance procedure. There was no complaint that the internal procedures were not followed.

 In November 2020, a 20% pay reduction in the form of a for day week was imposed on her. However, it is her contention that there was not a reduction of her work as racing continued behind closed doors and two of her full-time colleagues continued to work full time. It was the Employee’s view that the attempt to reduce her hours was an attempt to redistribute her work and therefore, reduce her workload.

The Employee raised a point that the Employer failed to follow through on a commitment to review her situation in March 2021 which she says raised during the grievance procedure. However, she does not accept it was addressed in her grievance investigation.

In total, the Employee worked 28 Fridays at a daily rate of €152.14 which amounts to €4,259.92 gross.

The Employer addressed the grievances through its grievance procedures. It stated that these cuts were necessary due to the restrictions place on greyhound racing as a result of the Covid19 pandemic. It outlined in detail the communication between the Employer and the Employee which also included a call from senior management in an attempt to explain the situation to her. It was emphasised that the Employee did agree in writing to the wage reduction. It was also stated that the Employee was offered to use her annual leave to make up the Friday each week however she refused this offer.

In summary, the Employer stated it made every effort to address the Employee’s issues both as events unfolded and again throughout the stages of the grievance investigation.

I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

There was no issue made by either party that the grievance procedure outlined in the staff handbook was not followed.

Greyhound racing was suspended under the Government imposed Covid19 restrictions from March 2020 until 29 June 2020 and subsequently, racing was permitted behind closed doors. Statistics were presented by the Employer as to the decrease the number of race meetings compared to 2019. However, this data must be considered in light of the fact the stadium was closed for at least 3 months in 2020 with racing continuing behind closed doors thereafter.

It is noted that the Employee did agree to a reduced working week by email on 19 November 2020 with the expectation it would be reviewed in three months’ time following a call directly with the Chief Executive Officer.

The General Manager explained that three staff members were put on reduced hours including himself although he was unable to give the exact day in which he or his colleague did not work.

Much was made of the letter of 19 November 2020 where; the Employee says she agreed to a 3 month review of her working situation. She says that review of her position did not happen. The Employer stated there was a response in February 2021 sent out to all effected employees and not just the Employee. It does appear upon reading of the Employee’s email of 19 November 2020 that she agreed on very specific terms to the pay reduction directly with the Chief Executive Officer who stated he called her personally.

It is recommended that the Employer pay the Employee for each Friday worked from 18 February 2021 to the date in June 2021 when her pay was restored. The reasoning for this recommendation is a review of the Employee’s employment ought to have taken place as per the specific agreement made between the Employee and the Employer in the Employee’s letter of 19 November 2020 to the Chief Executive Officer.

Industrial Relations Act -